If the Dems cut off the Iraq funding Bush would still keep the troops there until they were all dead

[NNN0LHI]

Bush The Psychopath has already shown he has no qualms about our soldiers being maimed and killed for political reasons. Think Bring It On! I actually think he enjoys it to be perfectly honest with you. It keeps him The War President. The Decider.

I say if the Dems cut off funding for Iraq Bush would leave them their until they were out of ammunition and trapped there to die. He doesn't care. There is no way this motherscratcher is going to pull the soldiers out under his watch. End of story.

We are going to have to get a Dem in as president in '08 to end this thing so I think we had better plan accordingly.

Don

[LaurenG]

1. I'm already worried about that scenario.

I hate to even entertain that possiblity but I think his ego wouldn't allow him to "give in".

[annabanana]

2. This is my fear, too.. We would allow funds to bring them home

and he would use it to make the bloodiest massacre of Americans since the Civil War.. And blame it on Democrats.

I believe he is capable.

[wakeme2008]

3. IMHO Signing Statement Bush would just move money from

other accounts to the war. Money for roads... War...Money for US Parks .. War...

The man is crazy...

[wake.up.america]

4. Bush is jockeying for position. Delaying the inevitable, trying to position...

himself so that Demos can be blamed for leaving the troops.

The Democrats have to make it very clear they want an end to the war, they will not abandon the troops already in position and they will not fund to send additional troops. Trouble is that additional troops are continuing to be deployed in the framework of the "surge".

What can be done to stop this insanity? Apparently not much, without opponents being accused of abandoning the troops.

[jarab]

5. Of course you're correct, but I wonder ...

about the OP's point.
Could the current occupier have any assurance that the "blame the Dems" card would actually stick (no), or would he want to have solid assurance by stretching the resources regardless of the outcome (yes)?
Legacy is important to this fella, and he'll exhaust all options in trying to leave a good one. Even at the unnecessary expense of lives - theirs and ours.
...O..

[wake.up.america]

6. The blame game is not as important as getting the troops home.

Bring the troops home. Who gets the blame can be discussed later.

Give Bush a robe fit for an emperor, a sceptre, a crown, a belated coronation - whatever it takes.

[NNN0LHI]

7. I think it may be more than legacy

I think Bush wants a reason to invoke some divine right to stay in power. Kind of like Giuliani did after 9/11 when he wanted to stay mayor of NYC after his term was over for "the safety of everyone."

With all the empirical powers Bush has bestowed on the presidency over the past years I just can't imagine him turing them over to a Democratic president easily.

Especially if Bush thinks (knows?) he may be liable for some future indictments for crimes he has committed.

Don

[elocs]

8. I suggested this as a possibility to a Republican friend,

that Bush would not withdraw the troops if funds were cut off, and he claimed that I was talking out of my ass. My fear is that Bush would leave the troops in harm's way and then blame the Democrats for the result of his actions.